Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo
On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> wrote:
A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.
I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work
than a word.
As to your example, you should note that the BSD licence does not
attempt to enforce the trademark itself.
The use of a trademarked logo (whether Debian's or someone
else's) can very reasonably follow the same rules.
Is it clear that the "Open Use Logo" is trademarked? It does not
appear to be part of the debian registered trademark public
information. Regardless, this is not a copyright issue.
Do you want to advance an argument that would allow us to keep
shipping the Apache logo (and perhaps others, such as the FSF's logo
or Sun's logo), but not our own? I'll listen, but I'm not holding my
breath. :)
Why do you ask this irrelevant question about consequences? I merely
asked if someone can provide the requested reference.
Now you're changing the subject. You're also engaging in the logical
fallacy, "Affirmation of the Consequent"
You appear to think it a valid way to avoid answering questions yet
still add noise to the discussion. When I do it about something
on-topic, I am "engaging in [a] logical fallacy".
What I do have a problem with is the argument that the presence of an
actual logo (or other mark, e.g. an actual name), whether ours or
someone else's, constitutes a violation of the DFSG.
I thought that using an over-restrictive copyright licence as an
attempt to do the work of a trademark or patent is normally regarded
as a route to failing to meet DFSG. However, that wasn't the main
point of the post to which you are replying.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
PM 8+9 Oct: visit me @ AFFS on .ORG stand, at www.linuxexpo.org.uk
Reply to: